Can you still win a round you've been knocked down in?

So what was the answer then? I wasn't around for this discussion but last night I scored the last round between Sulecki and Jacobs 9-9. After reading through this discussion I'm still not sure. Given that I thought Sulecki won the round (you don't have to agree), is the proper score 9-9, 10-9, 10-10 or something else? anyone?

9-8 probably. you'd still be behind because of the two points from KD. i've yet to witness this though even from lampley. weve seen a lot of 9-9's. 10-10 are for super close rounds i doubt anyone's been using it..

And you would be right. I tried looking for information online when posting and couldn't find anything in regards to the rules for judging professional Boxing. You can find general guidelines but not specific rules. It is my opinion. I wasn't trying to hide anything or imply that I knew above all others. The outline is one that I use when I score fights and it hasn't failed me yet. It's been able to handle every "what-if" scenario thus far. Yeah, that's alright for what it is in that sense. I sort of understood this, but I was trying to get to the technical aspects of the rules. That was the point of my hypotheticals, sort of. To present the hard or extreme cases, and pose the question of what to do then. I understand your system for what it is, but I'm interested in knowing the written rules on this. Are there written rules on this? This is kind of interesting. Of course there had certainly ought to be. But are judges in fact just following conventions on this matter as opposed to rule books?

And that may be perfectly fine and relevant, if you are some sort of major authority who determines judging methodologies and to whom judges report and work under. I'm guessing you're not though, so it's actually all just your opinion. And you would be right. I tried looking for information online when posting and couldn't find anything in regards to the rules for judging professional Boxing. You can find general guidelines but not specific rules. It is my opinion. I wasn't trying to hide anything or imply that I knew above all others. The outline is one that I use when I score fights and it hasn't failed me yet. It's been able to handle every "what-if" scenario thus far.

Yes, but it would produce some confusing scores for the rounds. Marquez winning the round up to the half way point of the round 10-9. Pacquiao gets a KD. (9-9) second KD (8-9) third KD (7-9) and overall winner of the round (6-9). :dunno: You don't get a point for winning half a round, and getting knocked 3 times would suggest you lost the round.

There's some amount of subjectivity involved with this system, for sure. But that subjectivity ends with determining which fighter dominates the action. From that point on, it's a matter of following the steps I outlined. There has to be some sort of consistency and the system isn't perfect but there's no room for whether a decision is fair or not if you follow the outline I mentioned. And that may be perfectly fine and relevant, if you are some sort of major authority who determines judging methodologies and to whom judges report and work under. I'm guessing you're not though, so it's actually all just your opinion.

Mayweather got a 10-8 round without a knockdown when he was beating the sh@t out of Ward. so yeah you could very much win it without a knockdown, you'd just have to utterly dominate after you've been kd.

pierre benoist and gale van hoy are teaching how to score fights up in here.

Since it is just a thought experiment, let us just say it is round 12, and the fight is dead even. Who wins this round wins the fight. Fighter B winning the round (and thus the fight); is that fair? There's some amount of subjectivity involved with this system, for sure. But that subjectivity ends with determining which fighter dominates the action. From that point on, it's a matter of following the steps I outlined. There has to be some sort of consistency and the system isn't perfect but there's no room for whether a decision is fair or not if you follow the outline I mentioned.

Using my explanation I would likely score it 10-9 in favor of fighter B. That is, if I felt fighter A really beat down fighter B for the majority of the round and was most effective regardless of the knockdown. Since it is just a thought experiment, let us just say it is round 12, and the fight is dead even. Who wins this round wins the fight. Fighter B winning the round (and thus the fight); is that fair?

according to the 10 point system, only way to negate a knock down is by delivering your own knock out

Can you still win a round you've been knocked down in? The way Manny was knocked down in the six, I hardly doubt it:lol1:

Practically, this works in the average case. But what about flash knockdowns? What about true beatings in which a guy is perhaps close to being stopped on his feet, but never actually touches down, and manages to make it to the bell. Lets pose a hypothetical example. Let's say fighter A gets caught out of position and off balance 30 seconds into the round or so, and his glove touches the canvas, and it is ruled a knockdown. Technically, it is a proper ruling, he was off balance, and a punch landed which caused him to touch down. However, he is not hurt at all. He then proceeds to beat fighter B from pillar to post for the remaining 2:20 or so of the round. He lays a real beating on the guy, though never quite gets him down, and the round ends. What do you do, as a judge? This is the sort of question that is in want of a proper answer. Using my explanation I would likely score it 10-9 in favor of fighter B. That is, if I felt fighter A really beat down fighter B for the majority of the round and was most effective aside from the flash knockdown.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but what if the fighter that was knocked down, returns 2 KD's. Not only evening the round, but winning the round by a point?

man, how is this thread 5 pages...and this forum is supposed to be populated by knowledgeable folks (-_-) To answer the original post. The round would be scored 10-9, after the first minute the judges should have had it scored 10 -8, but based on the fact fighter A dominated the rest of the round, he could earn his point back bringing it to 10 - 9 (Still losing the round though). If fighter A managed to knock down fighter B afterwards, the KD's would cancel each other out and scored normally, and possibly 10 - 10, which only signifies an EVEN round Now a days, Even rounds are frowned upon ...in the past Even rounds happened OFTEN. Secondly, a 9 - 9 round can only exist if a fighter wins the round but committed a foul... Foul's are deducted at the END of a round on the judges score card. So you score the round normally, if Fighter A wins the round, 10 - 9, but committed 2 fouls and lost 2 points, the round would be 8 - 9. Thirdly, First KD is always 2 points, subsequent KD's are 1 point. Therefore Pac/JMM round would of been scored 10 - 6. and you ask how this thread got to 5 pages (-_-) this thread confirms it that most NSB posters don't know how to score a fight

Here's the thing. This thread seemed frivolous at first, but it got me thinking. I think the main problem with judging, even with the professional judges, is that folks tend to score a round as it progresses. I'm guilty of this as well. I think it's best practice to judge a round once it is completed or deemed completed (in the case of a stoppage on cuts). Once the round is finished you evaluate the round and award the dominant fighter ten points. I believe knockdowns trump the dominance at this point. In determining dominance, you first look to the any and all knockdowns of the previous round. DOing this may negate knockdowns if both fighters go down. Otherwise, whoever had the greater amounts of knockdowns get the automatic nod for that round, giving them ten points. Practically, this works in the average case. But what about flash knockdowns? What about true beatings in which a guy is perhaps close to being stopped on his feet, but never actually touches down, and manages to make it to the bell. Lets pose a hypothetical example. Let's say fighter A gets caught out of position and off balance 30 seconds into the round or so, and his glove touches the canvas, and it is ruled a knockdown. Technically, it is a proper ruling, he was off balance, and a punch landed which caused him to touch down. However, he is not hurt at all. He then proceeds to beat fighter B from pillar to post for the remaining 2:20 or so of the round. He lays a real beating on the guy, though never quite gets him down, and the round ends. What do you do, as a judge? This is the sort of question that is in want of a proper answer.

Here's the thing. This thread seemed frivolous at first, but it got me thinking. I think the main problem with judging, even with the professional judges, is that folks tend to score a round as it progresses. I'm guilty of this as well. I think it's best practice to judge a round once it is completed or deemed completed (in the case of a stoppage on cuts). Once the round is finished you evaluate the round and award the dominant fighter ten points. I believe knockdowns trump the dominance at this point. In determining dominance, you first look to the any and all knockdowns of the previous round. DOing this may negate knockdowns if both fighters go down. Otherwise, whoever had the greater amounts of knockdowns get the automatic nod for that round, giving them ten points. Let's say fighter A is thus dominant. Fighter B's score is based on how many times he was knocked down. Fighter B already has 9 points, if he was knocked down once he gets 9-1; if knocked down twice he gets 9-2, etc. Then after taking account dominance and knockdowns you then factor in the lesser scored fighter's performance in the round. This too can negate a knockdown. So, if Fighter B is knocked down but is otherwise dominating the round he can salvage one more point, while still losing the round (10-9). After all that, you lastly take into account any deducted points due to fouls, resulting in a final score for the round. So, to summarize: A full three minute round ends wit one of two scenarios: A) No knockdowns or B) With one or more knockdowns If you have scenario A, you judge the dominant fighter based on the criteria of 1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggressiveness. 3. Ring generalship. 4. Defense. That fighter gets 10 points, the other fighter gets 9 points. You then assess any point deductions due to fouls as determined by the referee only. Pretty straight-forward Then you have scenario B: *Note: Knockdowns trump everything in this example. Whoever has the most knockdowns gets 10 points. If both fighters are equal in this, the knockdowns negate themselves. If Fighter A has a knockdown advantage he wins the initial 10 points (leaving the scoring at 10-9) at that point at the end of the round. The number of non-negated knockdowns results in a greater advantage for Fighter A by taking points away from Fighter B in terms of the number of non-negated knockdowns. Then, you look at fighter B based on the following criteria: 1. Clean punching 2. Effective aggressiveness. 3. Ring generalship. 4. Defense. If fighter B excels in these points against Fighter A, then one of the knockdowns against fighter B can be negated and they would gain back one point. There you go. One last caveat, if fighter b fights well enough to make the round a 10-10 after the knockdown you you've got one hell of a fight on your hands! :)

man, how is this thread 5 pages...and this forum is supposed to be populated by knowledgeable folks (-_-) To answer the original post. The round would be scored 10-9, after the first minute the judges should have had it scored 10 -8, but based on the fact fighter A dominated the rest of the round, he could earn his point back bringing it to 10 - 9 (Still losing the round though). If fighter A managed to knock down fighter B afterwards, the KD's would cancel each other out and scored normally, and possibly 10 - 10, which only signifies an EVEN round Now a days, Even rounds are frowned upon ...in the past Even rounds happened OFTEN. Secondly, a 9 - 9 round can only exist if a fighter wins the round but committed a foul... Foul's are deducted at the END of a round on the judges score card. So you score the round normally, if Fighter A wins the round, 10 - 9, but committed 2 fouls and lost 2 points, the round would be 8 - 9. Thirdly, First KD is always 2 points, subsequent KD's are 1 point. Therefore Pac/JMM round would of been scored 10 - 6. This is the best post in the thread so far. And I think the confusion going on here is that the original question is in fact a technical one, based on the rules. All of the answers though are related simply to practical experience from watching fights. In practice, an unreturned knockdown almost always leads to a 10-8 round. There is no rule however that a knockdown is automatically a point. That's just the conventional approach, or so far as I understand it. The fact that guys get 10-9 rounds in some rare instances seems to corroborate this. I'd be pleased to know if I am wrong, but as far as I know that is the case. I do not know the actual rules as per say the unified rules. It'd be nice to hear from someone who actually does though. unbelievable what people post here. You guys have NO CLUE and talk about that stuff as if you knew what you were talking about. Nekronicle just said the round can be scored 10-10 with both fighters being knocked down. CRAZY !!!! Before I continue to explain, READ THIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-point_must_system a Knockdown ALWAYS deducts one point. The other guy in this thread said that Sergio Martinez won a round 10-9 in which he got knocked down. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If Martinez got knocked down, he loses one point.

A clean knock down usually gets the fighter who scored it a 10 to 8 round even if the fighter who was knocked down gets up and wins the rest of the round. That may not be fair but from what I have seen in hundreds of fights that's usually the way it is. The best bet for him to win the round is to return the knock down and then win the rest of the round.That is how Martinez won a 10-9 round on some cards after Williams knocked him down early in the round. This is the best post in the thread so far. And I think the confusion going on here is that the original question is in fact a technical one, based on the rules. All of the answers though are related simply to practical experience from watching fights. In practice, an unreturned knockdown almost always leads to a 10-8 round. There is no rule however that a knockdown is automatically a point. That's just the conventional approach, or so far as I understand it. The fact that guys get 10-9 rounds in some rare instances seems to corroborate this. I'd be pleased to know if I am wrong, but as far as I know that is the case. I do not know the actual rules as per say the unified rules. It'd be nice to hear from someone who actually does though.

But if a boxer HAS to be awarded 10 points for winning the round it gets confusing and unfair. Say boxer A is losing the round. (10-9) He scores a knock-down... what does that make the round? 10-9 to him? That can't be right as he was losing the fight up to that point, the KD just makes it even. So you would have to score it 10-10 at that point in the round? :dunno: Dude, the 10 point must system means that you give the winner of the round 10 points and the loser 9 points or fewer. Basically the 10 point must system only says that you are not allowed to score rounds a draw (10-10), so there always has to be a winner in the round. And now to your comment: If Boxer A loses the round but scores a knockdown, it is a 9-9 round. Because the judges give the round to fighter B 10-9 and then have to deduct a point from fighter B because he was knocked down by fighter A.